I see a lot of dumbfucks and turbo autists here holding up DEPENDS ON THE SETTING as a mantra like the left uses the word privilege.
It does not, in almost all cases, depend on the setting. FOR EXAMPLE: If someone asks about orks and doesn't specify they mean 40k. For fantasy stuff, people mean D&D. It is very easy to work out from context if it is Eberron, FR, etc.
There are not so many settings out there that you can't use your brain and work out which one is meant.
So when you bleat DEPENDS ON THE SETTING what you really mean is:
1) LETS TALK ABOUT MY FAVOURITE ANIME/VIDYA/NOVEL
2) LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT MY HOMEBREW SETTING/SELF PUBLISHED NOVEL
3) LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT SOME OBSCURE HIPSTER GAME NOBODY FUCKING CARES ABOUT OUTSIDE OF POLYGON/RPS/SUSD PRAISING THE FACT IT HAS A BLACK GAY ELVEN COLLEGE PROFESSOR WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE ACLU AS AN ICONIC
4) SOME KIND OF CHING CHONG WEEB SHIT NOBODY CARES ABOUT
"Depends on the Setting" is just another way of saying "I noticed you didn't specify a setting, and I am autistic."
You should just ignore it, because it's always just a meaningless post.
>>46897873
I'm sorry you feel this way. Did you create this thread so you wouldn't feel so autistic? Because you're doing a shit job. Like, your mother giving birth to you level of shit job.
>>46897873
Here's your reply, OP.
>>46897976
>>46898192
>actually trying to defend the dumb meme
As autistic as OP appears, you've successfully outlapped the poor chap.
>>46897873
>I see a lot of dumbfucks and turbo autists here
If you're making a metathread to complain about posters, that means you're the turbo autist.
>>46898217
The meme is necessary, because it questions the hegemony of D&D as The System and standard D&D setting as The Setting. It should be read as "wake up sheeple"
>>46897873
pls anon contain your autism
>>46898284
Is that really what it is?
It's people butthurt about D&D being seen as the default because it's the most popular system?
Jesus christ, you guys are so pathetic.
>>46898310
I always took it as meaning exactly what it says, since a lot of people don't use the standard setting.
>>46897873
"Depends on the setting" is a completely valid answer.
If you want an analogy, if I ask you something like:
"{i = 5;
i = ++i + ++i;}
What does i equal?"
You don't answer 13, and you don't answer 14.
You answer "depends on the compiler".
Same shit with "depends on the setting".
>>46898321
If you take it exactly as it says, then there's no point in making that post, because just about everything depends on the setting.
At least that guy has a purpose, even if it's a retarded one that most people don't really initially see or understand and explaining it only makes it seem more retarded.
>>46898321
Though saying that, it might be better to just ask what setting people are using instead. That way it's continuing the discussion, and people might feel less shut down.
>>46898340
Yup. Realised as soon as I'd posted it.>>46898361
>>46897873
> "as a mantra like the left uses the word privilege."
Who hurt you, anon?
OP, if you want to ask a question about a specific D&D setting, its on you to state which setting you mean in your post. Its not reasonable to get angry because people can't read your mind.
>>46898337
No, it's more like "Hey, do you know what time it is?"
"It depends on what time zone you're in."
"That's nice, but do you know what time it is?"
"It depends on whether we are in a place that practices DST."
"Wonderful, but I just sort of want you to take a look at that watch on your wrist, that wrist right there, and to tell me what the numbers say."
"It depends on whether you and I both agree that these numbers both mean the same thing."
"Ohhhhhhhhhh.... Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize. I didn't see your 'i'm a sack of shit" button on your shirt until now. I'll go talk to someone else, thanks."
>>46897873
Pretending for a moment that this isn't the bait it clearly is, you're a complete moron who doesn't understand the point of the use of the phrase. It's used to express disregard for pointless questions. If OP asks /tg/ some retard pointless question about something that isn't detailed in any official fluff or mechanics, then the answer is always "depends on the setting", because there does not exist any canon answer and the question doesn't deserve a thorough examination from /tg/.
When people say "depends on the setting", what they actually mean is:
"Make something up, nobody gives a fuck."
>>46897873
>For fantasy stuff, people mean D&D. It is very easy to work out from context if it is Eberron, FR, etc.
Really? Because while you're skirting around it D&D settings can be extremely different. Elves can range from forest-dwelling nature lovers to imperialist mages to nomadic runners, while halflings can range from homebodies to plucky thieves to murderous cannibals.
What you really mean is "just assume the most boring world you possibly can and answer my banal question," which is dull as fuck.
>>46898384
>disregard for pointless questions.
Holy shit, you're ten times the autist OP will ever be.
>>46898382
Nah, if you are asking me over the Internet, what time it is, I'll answer "I dunno what time it is in your place, but the time at my place is XX:XX."
>>46897873
D&D is shit, that's why.
>>46898392
Weird, because the people in those threads don't seem to agree with you.
Maybe it's just you being upset that people are enjoying discussions that aren't quite as autistic as yourself?
>>46898382
The thing is though, you could have cut that conversation short right there in the second line by not being such a prick and just telling him what timezone you're in.
But no, you decided to be difficult. Well done.
>>46898397
Elaborate, should be fun to see where you're going with this.
>>46898398
That's the equivalent of "In my setting, blank blank blank."
Which "Depends on the Setting" isn't.
>>46898410
No, that's why we go "depends on the setting," and try to think of interesting answers instead.
>>46898421
"Depends on the setting" is the equivalent of "I can't tell the time, you prick, I dunno where you live. So either tell me where you live, or fuck off."
>>46898382
But your example is flawed, anon. A better one would be the guy asking 'what does a clock look like?' at what point its pertinent to ask him to clarify what kind of clock he means. Depends on the setting is an answer to a question that is vague enough to be meaningless, and a request for more specifics.
>>46898382
If your analogy really is "hey, do you know what time it is?" then the answer is "check the clock on your Desktop rather than making a thread about it."
>>46898382
"What time is it?"
"Depends on your time zone."
"Uh...I'm in CST."
"Oh, well, it's 7:00."
"Alright, thanks."
"No problem."
>>46898411
I think you're very stupid, because if you follow the course of the conversation, it's clear that they're both standing in the same time zone.
Regardless, all that needs to be done is the simple assumption that when someone asks you a question, they want YOUR personal answer. If you need to clarify extra information, that's great, but it's generally assumed that whatever the answer you provide is, it's the one that you personally prefer or believe to be true.
These are not bizarre, out-of-the-way assumptions. This is just the general way humans communicate.
>>46897873
>OBSCURE HIPSTER GAME NOBODY FUCKING CARES ABOUT OUTSIDE OF POLYGON/RPS/SUSD
Well, it depends on the setting.
>>46898436
>A better one would be the guy asking 'what does a clock look like?'
And then you can describe what you think a clock looks like.
If your answer is "It depends on the maker", that's just a passive aggressive non-answer.
You can describe a grandfather clock or a digital one, and even both if you're inclined, and even strange clocks that you find interesting. Any of those is a better answer than "DON'T ASK ME QUESTIONS I AM UNCOMFORTABLE IF IT'S TOO OPEN-ENDED BECAUSE IT'S CLEAR YOU ACTUALLY WANT TO DISCUSS SOMETHING WITH ME."
>>46897873
>For fantasy stuff, people mean D&D. It is very easy to work out from context if it is Eberron, FR, etc.
Do they, though?
Or do they mean one of the billions of other fantasy roleplaying games out there, or generic animu trash (hello, "elf stuck in tree" threads), or just a generic "setting" that encompasses all of media?
Hell, if someone talks about Orks specifically that's either 40k or Warhammer Fantasy - but that's because they spelt it with a K. If they said "Orc", did they mean the noble savages of D&D, the pig-faced orcs of old D&D, the Orcs of middle-earth, or animu bullshit?
Hell, what about kobolds? Are they furry or scaly? Do they have any relation to dragons whatsoever? Are they cutebolds, or are they germanic spirits, or what?
Even when something is "D&D", there's a lot of difference there! TSR D&D is a very different beast from WotC D&D, and even within WotC's "default" setting you've got at least three separate cosmologies!
And that's without getting into the non-published settings that individual DMs create for their games, where "God" might mean more than just a ton of hit points and free spells.
Oftentimes, "depends on the setting" is a very relevant question since there's a hell of a lot that actually depends on the setting! Even dumb questions like "why don't Wizards rule the world?" have a ton of assumptions you need to work through before being able to answer it properly.
>>46898410
For some of those threads, it's all just down to memes. Why do elves hate dwarves? 'Cause Tolkien did it and people copy him. They don't in individual settings, though, and thinking about it I'm not even sure that there's a current D&D setting where that's the case?
But it's still a meme, so it sticks around. Dwarves hate elves and are scottish, elves are slutty hippies, humans live in feudal kingdoms, guns aren't a thing despite 17th century armor, magic is rare and special and can do anything.
>>46897873
>3) LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT SOME OBSCURE HIPSTER GAME NOBODY FUCKING CARES ABOUT OUTSIDE OF POLYGON/RPS/SUSD PRAISING THE FACT IT HAS A BLACK GAY ELVEN COLLEGE PROFESSOR WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE ACLU AS AN ICONIC
So what you're saying is that D&D and Pathfinder are obscure, huh?
>>46898431
You don't need to know where another person lives to be able to tell the time, you idiot.
8:48 EST is an answer that provides useful information, especially if that person knows the time difference.
>>46898483
> Why do elves hate dwarves? 'Cause Tolkien did it and people copy him.
That's only a half answer though. I understand that you might not agree with the assumption that elves hate dwarves, and the answer "They really shouldn't, because X" or "In Y setting, they don't because Z" actually contributes to explaining WHY you disagree with that assumption.
>>46898479
But what if the guy isn't interested in grandfather clocks but means a wrist watch instead? Then he's stuck listening you spouting irrelevant things, and you wasting your time trying to educate him on something that isn't even relevant to him. Depends on the setting is an entirely legitimate way to point out that more specific information is required to answer the initial question properly.
This is why you just don't answer dumb questions at all and let the thread die
>>46898457
>I think you're very stupid
Good for you, but the context of your original conversation is flawed for talking about the OP. (see >>46898436 )
More than that, you entirely missed the point. Even if the answer should be obvious to the person you're asking, you're still choosing to be a fuckwit about it rather than just saying "Well this timezone, obviously"
>>46897873
Salty man child cries on 4chan, news at eleven...
>>46898541
>But what if the guy isn't interested in grandfather clocks but means a wrist watch instead
There's more than just OP in this world. If you think something is interesting, you should say it.
It's also bizarre that you think anyone is "stuck" listening to anyone.
Really, I'm starting to wonder why you think that the OP isn't fully aware that just about everything depends on the setting when he doesn't specify a setting. Reaching out to many people and looking for a wide range of opinions is largely the reason why they don't bother specifying a setting, because they're more concerned with understanding how different people prefer doing things instead of finding an answer they could google.
>>46898577
So, you ARE just stupid.
The point is that it's a passive aggressive non-answer to a casual question, not that the timezone actually matters.
Your issue is that you don't understand why people ask questions that are more open-ended than your insecurities allow you to tolerate. You're mentally fucked, kid.
>>46898483
I'm personally going to just start assuming they're referring to Darksun and answering things that way.
The question op poses is a lazy generic banal question that deserves the "depends on the setting" answer is gets because that's equally as lazy and noncommittal. Either the op can be specific or the op can be broad and weird his query in a broad manner but "orc marauder wat do" doesn't inherently deserve a better answer than "elf slav wat do".
Tldr op is an autistic faggot and belongs here
>>46897873
There's a huge difference between a D&D orc and a LotR orc.
There's a huge difference between a D&D vampire and a Vampire: the Masquerade vampire.
It's a simple matter of being clear about what's being talked about.
>>46898421
I don't really see a difference, other than one taking the initiative in the conversation. So where does the butt hurt come from in the other?
>>46898431
That's a lot of swearing you got out of three innocuous words.
>>46898640
Here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say an OP makes a one-line statement in greentext, then asks:
"Would you put this in your setting? If so, how would it fit?"
Is that format more acceptable?
>>46898655
I think the butthurt comes from a guy trying to use /tg/ like it was Ask Jeeves, only to get "Reply Hazy. Ask Again Later" on the Magic 8-Ball.
>>46898683
Yes, that is more acceptable.
An even more acceptable format is:
>green-text one-liner
"How does this fit in your game?"
>>46898655
The difference is that one is an answer that provides new information and encourages conversation, the other is a non-answer that attempts to be snarky.
One makes you a contributing member of a forum, the other makes you a cunt.
>>46898683
>I think the butthurt comes from a guy trying to use /tg/ like it was Ask Jeeves,
Why do you assume that they're using /tg/ like google? Your autism?
>>46898722
Let's be honest: most of the time, /tg/ answers "depends on the setting" because the OP just wanted to make a thread about their favorite anime on the wrong board, and /tg/ likes shutting down shitposters.
>>46898737
Ask Jeeves != Google.
>>46898457
>Regardless, all that needs to be done is the simple assumption that when someone asks you a question, they want YOUR personal answer.
Actually, OP is pantshittingly angry at the prospect of someone giving a circumstanced and personal answer. He tells it himself : if he asks a question, he wants the most generic and non-committal possible answer for the most generic setting conceivable, according to the lowest common denominator.
If he asks what time it is, he will call everyone autist beta cuckoo weaboo fedora grimdark sjw because you didn't give the hour in UTC+8 (China time, the most populous timezone).
>>46898621
>passive aggressive
I've noticed this come up a lot.
Motive guessing is a form of projection, anon, especially in anonymous text. The question isn't an attempt to halt the conversation, or make you feel dumb. It's an opportunity for you to guide the conversation to something you enjoy.
Don't worry about it, and have fun.
>>46898737
No. It's my interpretation of his intent. He wants answers from a robot, not dialogue with a human.
Daily reminder that there is no functional difference between poltards and tumblrinas. Also, OP. Get out.
>>46898799
This.
People be saying that depends on setting shuts down conversation, but it really don't. The only thing that actually shuts it down be the butt hurt they create in they own hearts.
>>46898821
Ye.
>>46898746
/tg/ also loves shitposting though.
>>46898536
It's less that I don't agree with the assumption than it is that that's the stereotypical dwarf.
Which is basically just Gimli, really. Short, gruff, vaguely scottish accent, cares about the beard and hates elves. Also, uses an axe. A dislike of trees is optional but appreciated.
If I made a thread asking "why do Dwarves care about their beards so much", I'd probably get a lot of people agreeing with the assumption that yes, Dwarves do care about beards. It's a meme, in the non-internet sense.
Elves being slutty is also a meme, and "it's not rape if it's an elf" is also an internet meme.
For more elvish memes, think about how they're beardless hippy magical girly-men. That's not really entirely true in any setting, I don't think, but those individual bits are things that you can probably get people to agree are very "Elvish".
>>46897873
>it must always be 40k
>it must always be d&d
I'll take that on board!
>Someone asks a question without specifying context that is important to the answer
>Someone asks for context
>OH MY GOD HOW FUCKING AUTISTIC ARE YOU FOR NOT KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN
>>46898601
Than OP is dumb.
Why not include a sentence like "through all editions" or write its just a collection for ideas.
If someone spergs about this "depends on" it shows either he cant communicate/write properly or is too autistic to think that all in his mind is default or the only truth.
>>46898746
Wait. Do people actually believe this?
All the other crazinesd aside, does anyone actualy think dots ever shut down anything?
It's literally the most ignored post. It happens in almost every thread, and the only reaction it ever really gets is a "fuck off, autist" at best.
>>46898918
Asking for context? Please, if you're hoping to pretend it's not just passive aggressive butthurt, it's a little too late for that.
That, and that the setting isn't quite as important as a person's personal views. People alter things in established settings all the time.
Sorry, but you're just a fag.
>>46898874
The dumb memes are dumb memes, regardless of setting. The dumb elf ones are not an issue with the person not specifying a setting, but with them having poor taste.
>>46899019
>if you're hoping to pretend it's not just passive aggressive butthurt, it's a little too late for that.
You're sounding a little paranoid m8
>>46899087
There's people up above genuinely admitting they use it because the OP apparently slighted them. Either because they assume OP is using D&D as the default, because the question is too broad for their taste, or because they are offended by the idea that people who play in diffetent settings may jointly discuss a shared topic while evaluating the merits of each others' opinions.
This is one of the most autistic posts I've seen in a long while.
Are you the same idiot from the thread about blank pages in spell books?
>>46897873
Seeing as OP is clearly too dumb to understand basic anaologies, lets try an example
>OP: what do dwarfs like to eat
>P1: in setting X they like dorf bread
>P2: in setting Y they like dicks
>P3: in setting Z they like fresh fish vag
>...
>PN: in setting N they like food what ever
so becuase the OPfailed to specify a setting, his question about the setting he ment goes un answered,and we have a bunch of unconnected foods.
if OP had asked
>what do dwarfs like to eat in YOUR favourite setting
then we could have a nice conversation about the different food dorfs eat
>>46899207
What do you mean "unanswered"? Are you genuinely retarded? Like genuinely, 100% a retard?
Do you actually think that people reply with "hurr durr, I'm making up a dick-eating setting in my head for the express purpose of giving you a meaningless and random answer"? At best, they might be offering a flippant joke, but it's hardly the fault of OP not explicitely demanding that all answers pertain to a favorite setting. Hell, someone's favorite setting might be a dick-eating setting.
I hate to do it, but you really need to be called a retard.
>>46898755
Not even close. Both are search engines, but one is so old an little used that I'm amazed most people even remember it apart from the commercials in the 90s.
>>46897873
In my setting, OP is a raging autist and a faggot.
>>46899329
That actually doesn't depend on the setting.
And the people hoping to try and defend the meme are even worse.
>>46899301
You're being intentionally obtuse.
>>46899388
No, you are being retarded.
In any thread where the setting is unspecified, most people are able to function under either the assumption that the OP is asking about your personal preference (which isn't actually tied to the setting, since people freely mix parts of settings to their tastes), or that you should specify what setting you are basing your answer on.
Only about one retard per thread is so stupid that they need to reply that "it depends on the setting" because they lack the base understanding of even a toddler.
>>46899301
>What do you mean "unanswered"? Are you genuinely retarded? Like genuinely, 100% a retard?
i grow more and more suspicious that you are a baitman. this the example above, OP wanted to know about D&D, the 'generic' setting. instead what he got was a bunch of different info about a bunch of different settings
Also, seeing as you didnt get it, dorfs eating dick and fish vag was a little joke on my part. sorry, should have clarified that you humorless dolt
>>46897873
>'can vampires feed off of eachother?'
which setting am i talking about, OP? what is the correct answer?you get 'depends on the setting' because you asked a broad question that can be answered in hundreds of different ways, many of which are contradictory, depending on the setting
stop being retarded, op
if you want to know more about a specific setting, mention that setting or even a system when you ask a question, ie 'can vampires feed off of eachother in nwod?' or 'in pathfinder' or whatever else
if you want to gather up a bunch of answers from a bunch of settings, mention that too
of course this is all assuming that you actually want to learn anything
if you just want to stir up the pot with a one line greentext thread then fuck off
>>46898382
that analogy doesn't work at all though because there is only one correct answer and it's being intentionally avoided
whereas in reality, when talking about something as vague as 'do elves live in treetops' or something equally asinine, there's fucking hundreds of correct answers because there's hundreds of different settings involving elves
>do you know what time it is
>depends on the time zone you're in
>oh, GMT+2
>yeah it should be 16:14 over there
>thanks
niggity wiggity
>>46899464
Your example only is relevant if all OP's only want to know about a single setting which they accidentally forgot to specify.
Since that's rarely if ever the case, it is retarded to assume that and to build an argument using that as the universal assumption.
Most people don't specify a setting because they want answers from as many different points of view that people versed in many settings can provide.
There are no "wrong" answers, just more and less interesting/viable ones.
>>46899462
While that makes sense, the first rule of writing is to assume you need everything spelled out to your readers unless you're writing a novel. As such, it is the responsibility of the OP to specify if he meant a setting or not. Take a fucking course in writing some time, you salty butt-pirate.
Also, the "eats dicks" was that anon making a rhetorical statement. He didn't actually mean that someone would respond that way and you fucking know it.
>>46899543
exept thats when people say
>depends on the setting.
questions similar to mine and >>46899468 are asked all the fucking time, and are comlpelatly meaningless. if someone says 'in your setting/favourite setting' then we know what we are looking at, and not guessing weather or not OP is a dickless retard. like right now.
basically stop being so butt hurt and specify if you want a general discussion about dwarf bread and elf trees
>>46899544
Fuck off with that writer's responsibility bullshit. Everyone except the dumbest idiots can understand that any OP isn't asking for non-answers.
It's all just a passive aggressive meme that long ago lost any hope of hiding behind some retarded benign purpose.
>>46898483
Warhammer Fantasy Orcs are also spelled with a C. Only 40K uses the K at for Ork.
>>46899207
>in setting Y they like dicks
Is setting Y 4chan?
>>46897873
I almost forgot about those comics.
>>46897873
Meta threads are cancer, and you've managed to add three different kinds of bait to the hook you dipped in with this one. Take it to >>>/trash/ where you belong.
>>46897873
somebody shit in your cornflakes there faggot?
>>46899681
>Everyone except the dumbest idiots can understand that any OP isn't asking for non-answers.
which is why we expect at least a modicum of effort on part of the OP asking why dwarves live underground
if you can't be fucked to at least qualify it with the setting you had in mind when asking that question (even if it's just 'in your favourite setting'), then you deserve a shitty non-answer
>>46899468
>>46899646
The major issue is that it DOESN'T depend on the setting so much as it depends on personal preference. They're related, but not exact, because people are free to mix aspects of different setttings in their games.
Sort of why people pose those broad questions to begin with.
>>46899681
And like that, you've willing thrown your end of the argument into the trash heap. Thanks for playing.
>>46899799
If you can't be fucked to make a basic assumption, why the fuck are you so insistent on getting fucked up enough to express how upset you are that the OP didn't make relegate his question to a specific minority of the board instead of trying to be inclusive?
Just don't post instead of being passive aggressive for all the wrong reasons.
>>46899870
>ask incredibly vague question
>get mad when you don't get the answer you're looking for
>get mad when you're told to specify
>b-but it's your fault for not assuming it was x-y-z setting
boo hoo
>>46899681
>Fuck off with that writer's responsibility bullshit. Everyone except the dumbest idiots can understand that any OP isn't asking for non-answers.
The point here actually is that asking questions that inevitably lead to "depends on the settings" is asking a NON-FUCKING-QUESTION to begin with.
Asking a question of Orcs are industrious or noble or sheer brutes is a non-question. That is why you are not provided with an answer. There is no universal answer to that question, because it DOES INDEED DEPEND AND DIFFER FROM SETTINGS TO SETTINGS, FROM RULESET TO RULESET.
There is absolutely no fucking way around it. You ask a dumb question and expect OTHERS TO GUESS which of the many major popular system you are referring to.
But there is something even more fucked up about people like OP than just assuming that others can read their fucking mind:
It's the problem of homogenization of fantasy ITSELF. Fantasy, as I should remind you, used to be a synonym to IMAGINATION. Not a rigid, shallow set of meaningless tropes. Even the systems and settings don't exist as rigid definitive systems, but rather as a pointers and suggestions that you should (and most do) use as stepping stones towards creating your own fantastic setup.
Not only that OP is an idiot who literally gets mad because people around him aren't psychics, but he is very specifically getting angry at the very notion that fantasy is about imagination and creativity. And that is some serious fucked up shit and quite frankly, indicative of clinical autism.
OP is an idiot and anyone who agrees with him not only fails to grasp basic communication, but fails to grasp the main fucking purpose of the exercise.
If you want to talk about specific case within a specific settings (e.g. Shadowrun, FR, Ebberon), there is NOTHING EASIER THAN TO STATE THAT AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL QUESTION. It is literally two or three extra words to write.
If you can't be arsed to do that, you deserve your "depends on the settings".
>>46899926
I keep seeing pictures similar to that. Is there some story for why there's photos of Japs playing extinguishers like saxaphones?
>>46899962
Depends on the setting.
>>46899990
You're a cheeky cunt, I'll give you that m8
>>46899870
>If you can't be fucked to make a basic assumption
Quick question, why should the person who has been ASKED a question, e.g. the person who is going out of his way to help the person asking be the one making assumptions?
Somebody want's an advice on some fairly specific subject. He asks a completely vague question and then assumes that the person when asked is supposed to make (correct) guess as to the specificity of the matter?
Would you enter a bakery, filled with all kinds of pastries, ask "How much for baked goods?" and then get mad at the clerk when he answers "Depends on which one you want." screaming angrily in an autistic fit that they hadn't immediately guessed you wanted bread - because in your brain, bread is the most commonly sold thing?
Are you actually sane? I hope to fucking GOD that this is all just an elaborate troll and that you aren't serious.
As much as the word autism has been thrown around this site to a point where it lost all meanings: THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR AND EXPECTATIONS is actually consistent with fairly severe CLINICAL autism.
>>46899962
I think I read something ontumblrthat the korean character for extinguisher is basically the same as the one for saxophone and they just sort of began making photos about it.
>>46899962
japs do a lot of weird shit i don't really question it anymore
>>46900052
that sounds vaguely reasonable
>>46899956
Holy shit, do you just not understand how humans communicate?
Lurk more. Honestly. You know those threads you hate so fervently because they dare to try to start a conversation? Take a look inside, and you'll find people discussing the question from multiple angles, offering and debating on opinions, and just generally having a good time exploring some component of their games.
For heaven's sake, if you don't understand how to speak, don't.
>>46900120
aren't you the one getting mad about apparently getting non-answers and no discussion in these threads
make up your mind
>>46900052
Clearly then, it should be...
>Jazz for your Seoul
>>46897873
whoa you expect me to read all that?
>>46900150
oh youi chuckled pretty hard
>>46900120
>Holy shit, do you just not understand how humans communicate?
Actually, far better than you, I can guarantee you that. And it's funny how you are suddenly trying to make it sound like everybody else is totally on the same wave as you and there is just something wrong with the small minority, when OP's bitchfit is exactly because he is confused by the reaction being reaction of majority.
People who start communication by posing a non-question get the answer that (correctly) informs them they had asked the question wrong. It's very simple.
Though reality is that people like you and OP, ergo people with actual severe cognitive disabilities don't start the discussion so much for a genuine communication, but rather to either confirm their frankly sick craving for homogenization of systematically pluralistic concept, or to have something whine about.
Nobody, NOBODY SANE in the world would actually consider the notion that if you are asking about qualities of some specific case of a more generic concept, you should probably define the specific case you have in mind.
>>46900042
Why do you persist in this weird idea that a thread needs to try and find the single, solitary, "correct" answer?
If anything, that's the exact kind of question that doesn't need a thread, since it can be asked in a general or easily researched by the person themselves.
It sounds like you're just upset that people are making threads you don't like because they want to discuss topics in a way that isn't neat, tidy, conclusive, and ultimately finished even before it begins.
You might literally have autism, and not the buzzword kind.
>>46900205
Oh god, you are crazy.
The majority react by ignoring the "depends on the setting" shitposters and just conversing like normal.
They understand the basics of human interaction.
Is that you, Reality Smasher Anon? Given up on pretending to be retarded with MtG?
>>46897873
>dat image
>>46900209
>Why do you persist in this weird idea that a thread needs to try and find the single, solitary, "correct" answer?
Because when the context isn't specified, 90% of these threads are retards belching their own ideas without listening and everything reliably ends up with two people insisting that their setup is the right one.
It's not that hard to establish that you want suggestions or brainstorming, actually. And those threads work. And don't contain any of those "depends on the settings" bullshit.
More important, you absolute cretin, you should note that it was OP FIRST who insisted on there being one single, solitary, correct answer. Re-read the OP post, he CLEARLY STATES THAT PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW THAT WITHOUT OTHER CONTEXT, THE QUESTION IS CLEARLY AIMED AT ONE OF THE MOST COMMON SETTINGS AND RULESTETS.
It's right there, in OP's post.
I have NO problem with people brainstorming and sharing ideas about how things could be. Just formulate the question as such. Don't ask "Is X Y?"
Say: "Ideas for X?" or "Would you prefer X to be Y or Z" or anything like that.
And then, obviously, you don't get the "depends on the settings" answer. Because then you are asking a legitimate question, not a non-question.
>>46900256
Clearny not, depending on how massively butthurt OP and you faggots are.
>>46900042
>why should the person who has been ASKED a question, e.g. the person who is going out of his way to help the person asking be the one making assumptions?
Because it's an automatic assumption for anyone who isn't genuinely retarded? It's hardly "going out of the way" to act like you've been human before.
Hell, "depends on the setting" doesn't even ultimately make sense, because personal preference trumps what a setting dictates.
>>46897873
People can answer your autistic question more appropriately if they understand the context in which you are asking.
>>46900256
so why are you so butt blasted over it
if it isn't that big of a problem why pitch a fit
you've defeated your own argument
>>46900363
>Because it's an automatic assumption for anyone who isn't genuinely retarded?
It may sound automatic in your own head, but as you can see around, it's not. Just like it's not automatic that if you go to a bakery, by "baked goods" you mean bread. Even when bread is in fact the most common item the shop sells. How did you not notice the similarly there?
The "Depends on the settings" is merely informing you that you asked a question that can't be satisfyingly answered, and that you need to clarify what you want to hear from other people.
If you want to debate the subject matter in regards of specific settings, say that. If you want a general brainstorming, say that.
But don't ask a concrete question about something that actually does not have, and more to the point NEVER SHOULD HAVE a definitive and concrete properties outside of specific context.
Look you sorry shits: if you ask "what are elves like?" and expect a concrete answer, you are doing fantasy entirely wrong. And you deserve to be laughed out: for A) assuming that people can read your fucking mind and B) trivializing fantasy to a trope.
>>46900344
OP is retarded, no doubt. But you are even more retarded for trying to defend and justify meaningless and ultimately pointless passive aggression.
People have a multitude of reasons to not need to specify a setting. With that in place, it renders the reply as just an ignorable little plus one to the reply count, seeped with the anger and resentment of people upset that others can enjoy a conversation on a level apparently above their tolerance level for intermingling of opinions.
The onus is on the person asking the question to set the context or purpose of the question. If the OP can't be bothered to include that information, then they should not be upset when a reply is vague or asking for more context.
People can not read your mind, OP. You have to use your words.
>>46900439
Wait, are you telling me that when somebody asks a dumb question, it's wrong to point out to him that his question is dumb and needs to be reformulated? Seriously?
Also, whose resentment an anger is a problem here? Because what I see is a bunch of sad sacks of shit throwing a bitchfit that people don't read their minds.
There is nothing resentful or aggressive about telling the person that the way he asked the question is nonsensical.
What is resentful and aggressive and frankly SERIOUSLY disturbing as an army of angry little brats screaming at others that they DARE to remind them that they posed the question wrong.
I should also remind you that this is 4chan. If you want backslapping sessions and mutual masturbation, you may be at the wrong place.
>>46899161
Oh shit I was thinking that too, it definitely is
>>46900428
If you actually look around the board, you'll notice that most people understand what an OP means without specifying a setting, and they converse without any real difficulty. They make the obvious assumptions. Because they are assumed to be humans of age 18 or older.
Even some of the people who use the meme in this thread have admitted that they understand, they just prefer to show how displeased they are.
And ultimately, this line of "but the answerer could just be actually that stupid to be incapable of making the requisite assumptions and genuinely hoping that OP specifies a setting" is ridiculous. It's just a dumb passive aggressive meme for people who don't even understand WHY they hate certain threads.
It's not because they didn't specify the setting, because, funnily enough, most of those questions DON'T depend on the setting, but personal preference.
>>46900331
(c) Dennis
>>46900512
I'm saying it's not what might make it a dumb question, especially since most people are able to intepret it correctly.
It may be dumb for any number of other reasons, but hardly because the OP chose not to specify a setting.
>>46900605
>they converse without any real difficulty. They make the obvious assumptions.
They converse about a zillion different settings and end up arguing because of it. For instance, in any thread about elves you have people bring up at the very least Tolkien elves, WoW elves and D&D elves, and there's always the guy talking about his own setting
>It's just a dumb passive aggressive meme
What kind of twisted logic do you have to follow to reach this conclusion? It seems to me you're just over analyzing to justify getting angry over nothing
>>46900872
Just to give you one example, on WoW orcs are basically green fantasy barbarians, whereas Tolkien orcs are cowardly 3ft tall corrupted elves who hate literally everything and look like some sort of deformed ape
>>46899820
It's not personal preference if the game/setting you are talking about expressly forbids or allows it, anon.
>>46900872
>They converse about a zillion different settings and end up arguing because of it.
Welcome to human conversation. These people are not trying to avoid confrontation, they are expecting it because they are willing to share their opinions in an open forum.
>What kind of twisted logic do you have to follow to reach this conclusion?
Aside from people openly admitting to that in this very thread? How about that your entire line of reasoning being "I don't like threads that people might argue in"?
It's a dumb meme that people parrot without even understanding what it means or how pointless it is, and the only thing dumber than mindlessly using it is actually trying to defend it.
>>46901060
Find me that setting where it is expressly forbidden, and I will shove it in just to prove a point.
Welcome to the wonderful world of RPG settings. No one can ever tell you what you can't do, only the things you shouldn't do.
>>46901104
>Welcome to human conversation. These people are not trying to avoid confrontation, they are expecting it because they are willing to share their opinions in an open forum.
Except for asking what setting the OP is talking about, for some reason? This is relevant information and not always done to "avoid confrontation". For instance, in the thread about 100 orcs, humans and elves pitched against each other people asked from what setting they were because while in something like D&D the fight would be somewhat even, Tolkien orcs would be more or less swatted aside by everyone else and then a single elf would kill all the humans. This is not a matter of "sharing your opinion in a open forum", and I seriously don't understand where you could get this idea. People simply want to know specifically what they're talking about.
> How about that your entire line of reasoning being "I don't like threads that people might argue in"?
What? Please read again.
>It's a dumb meme that people parrot without even understanding what it means or how pointless it is, and the only thing dumber than mindlessly using it is actually trying to defend it.
You're saying a lot of very vague, very spooky phrases that don't really make sense in this context, please try again
>>46901124
>Find me that setting where it is expressly forbidden, and I will shove it in just to prove a point.
At which point you cease playing that setting and start playing a homebrew based on it. That disproves your point.
>>46901186
It sounds like you actually don't know anything about the actual differences and similarities between D&D and Tolkien races. Maybe you should have tried to actually learn something from that thread you hated so much.
>>46897873
So you're butthurt because people want to know a few more specifics before jumping to conclusions?
Looks like the only turbo-autist here is you, fag.
>>46901384
I was actually paraphrasing a few posts from that thread. But since you're essentially saying "Yeah well I know more than you!", and talking about an unrelated topic on top, I'll just assume you don't have an argument.
Also, I'd wager you're the one who doesn't know anything about Tolkien races if you think that's not true if a bit hyperbolic.
>from that thread you hated so much
And here's you pulling stuff out of your ass again. There's a point where your arguments can get disjointed enough that it is hard to type a coherent response, and you've reached.
>>46901343
Do you actually play any RPGs? If you did, you'd understand that every GM modifies the setting according to their own designs. There are literally no rules that can't be broken if the GM needs them to be.
>>46901460
My argument is largely that you are an arrogant idiot. You hate the very kind of thread you probably need to stick your head into more, because you assume a lot without actually knowing anything.
You're really the worst kind of idiot.
>>46901466
So you're saying it's okay to insert D&D wizards, Planeswalkers, and Space Marines into Middle Earth, just because you think it's needed?
>>46901513
>My argument is largely that you are an arrogant idiot.
Okay, that's a pretty coherent insult
>You hate the very kind of thread you probably need to stick your head into more, because you assume a lot without actually knowing anything.
Did you have a seizure while typing this?
I'm done with this thread actually, shouldn't have taken the bait in the first place.
>>46897873
Why would anyone hate the objectively best pokemon?
>>46898579
What time zone?
>>46901540
What's hard to understand about you needing to see how other people compare different settings? The part that would require you to not be an arrogant idiot who assumes more than he knows?
>>46901580
They blame it for giving kids seizures.In reality, Pikachu did it.
>>46901537
Personally? No, but I'm willing to hear someone try to justify that opinion if they earnestly hold it.
>>46901617
The hard part is where you are acting like "an arrogant idiot who assumes more than he knows".
It's easier to convince people when you don't undermine your own arguments.
>>46901617
One last post because you caught me before closing the tab
>The part that would require you to not be an arrogant idiot who assumes more than he knows?
I fail to see where I'm assuming anything. In fact, not asking for a setting in that kind of thread requires more assumptions than doing so
>>46901513
Isn't your whole point that you're begging people to make assumptions instead of asking for more information?
>>46898382
i would've said to you "it's time to get a watch bitch boy"
I, for one, am going to answer vague setting-dependant question threads with responses specific to obscure settings from now on, and I urge you all to do the same. Ultimately it has the same effect as "depends on the setting", but with the added bonus of being the only way OP will understand what a retarded child he is.
"Why are orcs so strong, /tg/?"
"Well actually in the world of Harry Potter orcs don't exist. Might you have been referring to gnomes? They're not very strong."
D&D doesn't even have one setting, it has multiple and don't tell me Ravenloft, Dark Sun, and Planescape are hipster tier. Choke on a dick OP.
>>46901767
No, it's to stop making stupid assumptions. Or, more precisely, to stop pretending that this is about the stupid assumption that the OP isn't aware that they are omitting the setting or that designating a setting is imperative to all discussions.
Overall, once again, this is just a dumb meme used because people can't ignore discussions they apparently fail to understand.
>>46897873
>I don't like when people try to create original/somewhat unique settings
>>46901591
GMT -25:00
>>46901940
Orcs are humans that have been exposed to the FEV virus, and one of the advanced mutations is super strength.
>>46897873
Are you that autist from yesterday that derailed three threads? Because you need to stop.
>>46901940
Why not stop being pasaive aggressive instead?
Why not just openly say "OP I HATE YOU BECAUSE YOU WANT A DIFFERENT KIND OF DISCUSSION THAN THE ONE I CAN HANDLE."
>>46897873
>So when you bleat DEPENDS ON THE SETTING what you really mean is:
No, it means "You're fucking idiot and should specify the setting you want to talk about". Idiot.
this thread was blatant bait and I'm very disappointed in you /tg/
>>46902184
Why though?
If the OP wants to engage a wider audience and to hear more than the point of view which comes from a single established source, how does that make him an idiot?
>>46902178
>What's hard to understand about you needing to see how other people compare different settings? The part that would require you to not be an arrogant idiot who assumes more than he knows?
He is not passively aggressive. You should probably check the meaning of those words. He is mocking OP, and he is mocking him on the (correct) basis of OP asking for impossible. It's not the difference between having different kind of discussion, it's about OP doing something that PREVENTS ANY KIND OF MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION because he literally can't be arsed to type out those two or three extra words of clarification.
You are not demanding a different kind of discussion, you are demanding a discussion happening while not being able, or willing to actually ask for it.
People literally don't understand your question and your demand. It's that fucking simple. It's not their fault that you can't communicate your desire or intention properly.
You speaking in gibberish and then blaming others for not understanding you.
>>46902402
>PREVENTS ANY KIND OF MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION
Then why do those threads still have meaningful discussions? Seems like your thesis is just empty words of "YOU CAN'T" while everyone else is just saying "but we already do."
>>46902257
>If the OP wants to engage a wider audience and to hear more than the point of view which comes from a single established source, how does that make him an idiot?
Because he does not state that. If he wants a brainstorming session, nothing prevents him from stating that. It's quite literally the difference between saying:
"How long do Elves live?"
and
"Let's talk about Elves and aging."
or
"I'm refining my ideas for Elves, let's talk aging."
or anything like that.
Nobody will tell you "it depends on the settings" if you say that you want to ideas and opinions on the subject of Elves and age for whatever you do - homebrew, world-building, fluff.
Just don't treat Elves as a definitely defined thing existing outside of particular context of individual fictions and there will be literally no problem. And it takes virtually no time too.
Ask the right questions and you won't have to deal with people giving you the wrong answer.
>>46897873
I've always seen "depends on the setting" as a counter to blatant shitposting threads in a way that doesn't satisfy the shitposter.
"Hey /tg/ what if elves were made of chocolate?" "Depends on the setting." Et cetera.
>>46902480
>Then why do those threads still have meaningful discussions?
Considering the sheer amount anal pain and frustration you cretins have been displaying through out this whole debate, I actually don't think they do. And most of those I've seen indeed did not. Between people saying that it's a stupid question, people belching on about their own favorite fiction and then insulting those who liked a different one, autists demanding one clear answer across all works - these threads are all fucking shit and you know it.
You know it and that is why you are here complaining, instead of being in one of those threads enjoying the debate. The debate is shit because beneath it, it always slides towards the terrible, cancerous and autistic obsession of nivelizing all fantasy into one generic shitty blob, so that autists won't have to actually use their imagination OR go through the painful process of normal human communication.
>>46902619
But it's not a "counter". It's just an additional reply for those shit threads. And, it also winds up being a bit of misplaced passive aggression from parrots in not-shit threads that just so happen to not specify a setting.
Really, the problem isn't whether OP specifies a setting, and the people who parrot this meme don't really understand that.
>>46902584
>he doesn't state
Does he really need to?
Does he?
It doesn't sound like it, especially since most people understand what he's going for, and only the one automatic Depends guy really shows any sign of confusion.
This topic has convinced me. Next time a thread comes up asking what color hats wizards wear I'm just going to start answering that wizards don't exist and thus do not wear hats. Because I am apparently no longer allowed by his royal highness OP to beg for clarification as to what make believe setting he is referring to I'll just default to real life.
Fuck, OP, do people even game with you?
>>46902852
Clearly he does, otherwise we would not be having this fucking discussion you cretin. The "Depends" is not confused. OP is confused because he still can't figure out why nobody is answering his question, and refuses (like you) to actually realize that it's his own responsibility to communicate properly.
The "depend's guy" IS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT RIGHT. It's an absolutely correct answer to the question that OP and his ill kind has posed. It's by far the most sensible and correct answer.
The fact that the Depend's guy does not go an attempt to reconstruct OP's autistic mind, guess what the fuck does he mean this time, what exactly does he want to hear, is another thing. It's not confusion, it's just unwillingness to deal with fucking autist who can't say what they want.
Most people don't understand what is going on. Most people say "depends", or go full on autistic in their own way. That is why OP complains about people who turn the discussion towards their own favorite fiction for fuck sake.
Again: if everybody understands, then WHAT THE FUCK HAVE YOU BEEN WHINING ABOUT FOR THE PAST FOUR FUCKING HOURS?!
>>46903032
There's a difference between asking for clarification, and parroting a dumb meme used by passive-aggressive individuals.
Don't pretend you don't understand the distinction.
>>46903078
OP is a special person.
Ignoring him for the moment, partially because I suspect he might have even been a false flag, most threads that don't specify a setting get their automatic Depends post, and then proceed without even acknowledging that post.
The major issue seems to just be the few Depends people who fail to appreciate why people ask questions without specifying a setting, combined with misplaced anger that assumes that not specifying a system somehow is a cosmic crime and can be blamed as the reason for bad threads, when that just isn't the case.
>>46903098
>>46903098
>Don't pretend you don't understand the distinction.
Don't pretend your anyone's mental superior on tg fer chrissakes
Look at the OP.
Why is he angry?
Are you angry?
Why or why not?What setting are you in?What setting is OP in?
>>46903404
Do you genuinely not understand the distinction?
>>46903457
I'm sure you'd be very qualified to explain whatever it is you're on about
>>46903277
The reason why the "Depends" guys exist is because of people like OP, or at least people like the one OP was supposed to parody. And NO, NOBODY FAILS TO APPRECIATE THAT PEOPLE MIGHT ASK SETTING'S NON-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
People take issue with HOW they ask those questions, and who they then react to people naturally taking them for fools because they ask like a fucking autists. Which they mostly are - see OP.
This is the absurd crux of the debate: The problem lies exclusively in most basic common language: Don't formulate non-specific questions like they are specific. For fuck sake this isn't even genre or topic or board specific question: it's the most rudimentary use of language.
You don't go and ask: "How much does a vehicle cost?" and then get fucking offended if half of the people will answer "Depends on what bloody vehicle?" And the definition of "vehicle" is STILL miles more specific than the definition of an orc or a fairy.
Seriously, how is this even a fucking problem? HOW FUCKING HARD IS IT to say: "I'm trying to figure how much should I charge for cars and ships for in my upcoming campaign, could you give me some pointers?"
A person not as autistic as OP will not have a problem understanding why you need to properly formulate your request to gain optimal feedback. If this confuses, you have a problem. Nobody else.
>>46903098
So, how should we ask the simple as fuck question so as not to trigger your soft and sensitive feelings.
>>46898674
>three
>>46903611
Heh heh, you caught it!
>>46897873
The most often asked question in the Shadowrun threads is "4E or 5E?" Because NO-ONE EVER FUCKING SPECIFIES
AND IT FUCKING MATTERS BECAUSE THE SETTINGS CHANGE BETWEEN THE TWO EDITIONS
FUCK YOU IT DOES FUCKING DEPEND, JUST PUT IN THE CONTEXT YOU LAZY TWAT SO WE DON'T HAVE TO WASTE 10 SECONDS ASKING WITH WHAT CONTEXT YOU WANT TO DO AN IDEA IN
It's like with newfags saying "I want to play an RPG" and then someone asks "what kind of game do you want? A fantasy game or science fiction one, or something modern perhaps?" and you sometimes get a good answer like "my friends are veering towards sci fi, they like mecha" or "I was thinking of some epic fantasy tale" and then people can suggest some good RPG systems and also D&D or pathfinder, then people will tell them not to play D&D or pathfinder but some other systems instead.
If the newfags asked "I want to play a science fiction RPG, which one can you suggest" or even "I was wanting to play a star wars RPG but there's like 3 different types, which is best?" then we can skip the preliminaries asking about what precisely they are interested in most personally and go directly to calling each others fags for liking/not liking mainstream systems.
>>46903601
"What setting are you referring to?" might be a good start. That invites an answer rather than being seen as a shut down that hurts OP's fragile feelings, even though they are implicitly asking for the same information.
Isn't asking setting-specific questions basically asking for a DED THRED?
I mean, go look at that Planescape General or whatever, that's a setting-only, systemless general and it gets like 2 or 3 posters and always dies early.
>>46903592
What your error is is thinking that OP is representative of a much larger group.
OP is a special retard. There are others who may be like him, but by and large most threads that don't specify a setting have no real need to.
But, regardless of the thread, as long as no setting is specified, a Dependant parrots the meme. Every time. To the point where all it means now is "I recognize that no setting was specified."
And, no, you don't need to specify what setting if you don't want to. You can ask "why do gnomes love conga lines?", because that's all you really need to say to start a discussion to figure out the answer.
Is this particular question dumb? It very well might be, but it's hardly harmful, and if it really upsets you that much that people want to talk about gnomes and dancing traditions in a general fashion, you are free to say "in X setting, gnomes hate the conga but love the tango," or better yet, you can say nothing at all.
>>46903601
Maybe you can start with a genuine curiosity? It's kind of hard to take someone seriously if they start out on the assumption that there was a failure to specify instead of leaving a question purposefully broad.
Really, if there's something that sparks your curiosity and makes you assume that the OP is referring to some rare setting, feel free to ask, but before then, it only makes sense to approach the question as if they want to know your personal feelings towards it.
>>46903885
>What your error is is thinking that OP is representative of a much larger group.
That is not an error, that is plethora of experience. Let's not kid ourselves: the threads in question here are in vast majority of the same.
Some fucking autist comes and asks:
"If Elves live so long, how come they hadn't developed industrial revolution yet?"
And what follows it a dance of the development disorder spectrum: retards making their own head cannons claims about how, then insulting and raging at others because the others have their own autistic ideas, and the threads are, without a question, without an exception, shit.
And THESE are the kind of threads that people who would actually even liked to participate in these threads, but can't because the autists haven't realized that there are no head-cannons allowed spam with "Depends of on the fucking settings."
Because the reality is, the whole depends on the fucking settings is nothing more than a sight of frustration over years and years of autistic debates of autistic cretins who care about being right, rather than realize that this is all about imagination and creativity.
It's a shitty practice to make specific concrete questions or statements without establishing concrete context. And it could not be a problem if people were ONLY capable of communicating LIKE FUCKING PEOPLE.
And it BOGGLES THE MIND that anyone would go out of their way and defend lack of BASIC COMMUNICATION SKILLS.
You know what boggles my mind?
The amount of autism required to care about this.
>>46904040
>Maybe you can start with a genuine curiosity?
I haven't ever asked the question without it.
>>46897873
>complains about dumbfucks and turbo autists
>posts a highly autistic rant
How's this thread working out for you? Poorly, by the look of it.
I can tell you're butthurt and trying to defend your simpleton's habit of posting vague questions on a broad board like /tg/. As you have no doubt discovered, this often prompts people to tell you that the precise answer likely depends on setting in question, and tacitly invite you to be more specific.
If you're so bothered the phrase, save yourself some effort and lay context; or, specify that there is no context and you're asking a broad question. Failure to do so is your own fault for being lazy.
>>46904072
That's your personal view.
And, frankly, it's a little insane. The threads are not ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION shit, even if there's a few shitty posts, and overall it's clear that you're melodramatic and exaggerating.
People discuss things in a bit of a wild mess here, but that's fine, and ultimately your issue is just that people are willing to argue about their personal tastes in threads about personal opinions.
Whatever your mental problem is, the one thing I want to hammer home is that Depends doesn't do anything constructive, and is just passive aggressive shitposting of the most ineffective kind. All it is is an annoying but ulimately ignorable post that's lost all meaning, and is a minor annoyance at best that might actually have helped increase people's willful desire to not need to specify a setting.
>>46904714
You know what's a little insane?
Arguing for hours over a meme.
>>46904072
You too, faggot.
>>46904072
>Let's not kid ourselves: the threads in question here are in vast majority of the same.
That's where you're wrong. Or at least, your perception leads you deep into the realm of subjectivity, where you are hardly allowed to try and condemn such a vast and wide category of threads as "threads where the OP doesn't specify a particular setting."
I understand you don't like bad threads. Nor do I. But I think if you took a moment to consider the actual reasons behind why you think a particular thread might be bad, you'll realize that whether or not the OP specified the setting only plays a minor role. Usually, it's simply that the matter is about some volatile, contested topic, and if your hope is to try and police this board until people stop arguing altogether, I'd recommend you find some tool that's a little more effective than "Depends on the Setting," and maybe this time actually addressing the root of the problem instead of your personal pet peeve.
>>46898217
.... well shit, OP even failed at being the most autistic. This is turning into a running trend OP.
